I had posited in the thread about Reusse’s pathetic “Zimmer sucks” column that it might be a fun exercise to look at the depth chart and consider levels of improvement and what that might mean for the 2017 season.

So I found some time and did it.

This is all my own work, and probably not complete, but I reached what I think is a provocative conclusion.

First a few assumptions:

1.) IMO the WR / TE group is most likely a push with last year. In most cases they did very well, so expecting 5% or 10% improvement seems like a stretch to me. We had what basically amounted to two 1000 yard receivers and a good TE. IMO, this performance from a yardage basis is not as likely to improve. (10% improvement for Diggs / Theilen would = two 1200 yard seasons. That seems like a stretch goal to me. Feel free to argue. Admittedly, I mostly went with this view to keep the analysis conservative.

2.) This is a big one. Reilly Reiff is a substantial upgrade over Matt Kalil due to his better overall average performance and his established history of proven durability. Kalil MIGHT have a higher ceiling that Reiff, but outside of his rookie campaign he has never been the better player. In the case of 2016 the difference between an even average Reiff and what we got from Clemmings is GIGANTIC. Key stat: Clemmings sabotaged 40% of the Vikings Offensive Drive with sacks, blown blocks and penalties. I would argue that a repeat performance at that level is statistically remote.

3.) Mike Remmers, even if he plays league below average at RT is an ENORMOUS improvement over TJ Clemmings in 2015 and a decent improvement over Sirles in 2016.

4.) Despite points 2 and 3, Remmers and Reiff are coming into a new OL, which typically equals a learning curve as the new guys acclimate to one another. In my view this is offset by the fact that we had so many injuries at tackle last year that this scenario was also present in 2016, but with worse players at the two positions.

So on to the fun stuff.

In 2016 the Vikings Rushing Game yielded a pathetic 1200 yards during the regular season. I took it upon myself to try and project what it would look like in 2017 with two new tackles, but no Adrian Peterson. I settled on looking back to 2014 which was a year where we had better OL play, but no #28. In that season we managed to produce 1800 yards of rushing. Literally a 600 yard improvement over 2017 with backup RBs and what most regarded as a suspect OL. So in keeping things conservative I think a fair estimate would be that we get back to slightly above league average and reap the 600 yards. That is a 37.5 YPG improvement.

More on the yardage. If you extrapolate out McKinnon’s 2017 numbers he would have produced ~575 yards in 16 games. If you do the same thing to 2017 Murray, the figure is 900 yards. That accounts for 325 of the 600 yards. I think we are safe to expect the rest of the roster to make up the 275 yards to get to 600. Again, feel free to opine.

On the scoring side, that 2014 unit managed 12 TDs. The woeful 2017 group produced 9 TDs. Latavius Murray on his own scored 12 TDs in 2016 with the Raiders. So I think we can reasonably expect a 3 TD improvement form the rushing game.

The X-Factor here is Dalvin Cook. If he can get on the field and be NFL ready, he has big play ability that the Vikings lacked from this position in both 2016 and 2104. (Murray is not a big play RB.) So there is potential for this group to over achieve.

Passing Game:

I am going to keep the yardage flat which is VERY conservative considering what should be improvements at OT. I am going to add 3 TD due to additional opportunities afforded by the running game. That would mean going from 20TD to 23TD. A 15% improvement, which is statistically large, but modest in light of the increased rushing yardage.

Kicking Game:Two major factors at play here. Blair Walsh’s inaccuracy with FG (75% rate) and lack of opportunities due to offensive woes. In this case, I split the different. Walsh hit 75% of his FH, Forbath made 100%. I used a number of 90%. On PAT, sadly, Forbath was as inaccurate as Walsh at 79%. I gave a modest improvement and bumped it to 80%. Attempts are where we see improvement, due to what should be a better rushing game providing more opportunities. In 2016 we had 31 FG attempts. League average was upper 30s. So I increased the expectation to 38 based on increased opportunities from the running game, just as with the passing game. I increased the PAT by the 6 additional TD I added in the Rushing / Passing work above. This nets to 27 points of additional scoring.

Defense:IMO, if we are seeing the return to normalcy for our rushing attack, then we should see our opponents afforded less opportunities with the ball. However, our defense is already great. Our Points Against in 2016 was 19.2. Given the above, I will lower by 1 point to 18.2, due to greater offensive TOP as a result of improved rushing efficacy and more pressured on opponents to be 1 dimensional to our having more points on the board. (+6TD, +7 more FG opportunities)

Summary:

Rushing:600 yard improvement on the season or 37.5 YPG+ 3 TD

Passing:Flat Yardage+3 TD

Kicking:6 More PAT attempts7 More FG AttemptsNet 27 additional Points based on accuracy and total attempts. In 2016 we scored 327 points. If I add the above I increase by 63 points to a new offensive production of 390 PF. As reasonability test, that would make us a top 15 offense, or slightly better than average. Note this is built in part on the performance of the passing game last year. Bradford had a very good season despite the OL mess.

Our defense gave up 307 points. If I reduce by 16 points for the improvement above that equals 293 PF.

So let’s wrap it up:In 2016 our point differential was 1.25 points per game. For 2017, based on my estimates, the point differential would be 6.1875! (390-291) / 16

This assumed only a return to league average for the rushing game. If the passing game benefits and improves over 2016, which it likely should, then my PF estimate is probably too conservative, which is very significant. If it gets much higher, that means we are averaging wins by over 7 points. That likely would drive our PA number down further since teams would then be truly one dimensional. In this respect, I think you reach a point where scoring numbers stop being incremental to players and more incremental to the team as a whole.

My major reason to bring this up is that I wanted to articulate how little I think it will take, performance wise to balance this team out given the greatness of the defense. It also points to just how bad the 2016 offense was and thus the tremendous upside even being average could produce. Given the 2014 results it probably also shows, at least to me, just how much impact the tackle play had on the 2016 season. We had a better QB and better WR in 2016 than we had in 2014, yet we rushed for 600 fewer yards with same RB as we had in 2014.

Anyways, feel free to comment. I’ve been wanting to have a talk about the smaller pieces vs. just focusing on the W/L record. My view remains that this team is a lot closer to 13-3 than it is 7-9, assuming it stays healthy. SKOL!

_________________Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

Wed May 24, 2017 3:26 pm

S197

Fenrir

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pmPosts: 10984Location: Hawaii

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

If the defense can maintain that #5 ranking or thereabouts then I definitely agree that an average offense is sufficient to put this team in the top tier. I mean, the offense was downright awful and they managed a .500 season.

The biggest keys as you mention are going to be can the line stay healthy, get cohesive, and also can SB stay healthy. I think the addition of Floyd and hopefully production from Treadwell will help the receiving corp. Maybe not on an absolute basis but provide better depth as Diggs while good, has had his share of missed games. I think Wright may be the odd man out but it's early.

I'm a bit worried about TE. Rudolph can produce when he's on the field but depth gets very suspect afterwards. I like Hodges potential but I doubt that can be realized right away.

I think RB should be fine with the Cook/Murray/McKinnon combo.

Quote:

I’ve been wanting to have a talk about the smaller pieces vs. just focusing on the W/L record. My view remains that this team is a lot closer to 13-3 than it is 7-9, assuming it stays healthy. SKOL!

I agree, I'm rather optimistic about this season.

Wed May 24, 2017 4:44 pm

Nunin

Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 amPosts: 567

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

Nice work, Squatch.I agree, given relative good health, that the Vikes have enough talent in place to win the North and would hedge toward their record reflecting that than, say 8-8.-We'll see how big a loss Munnerlyn is. That guy was playing well IMO. But aside from that, I think the D is stout.-I'm not a fan of letting CP go, perhaps Floyd or Treadwell can assert himself?Either way, as you stated, this offense will only go if they can run the ball. In fact when you really examine what made them so awful last season, it was their inability to run the ball at all. In spite of the poor O-line situation they still managed a decent pass attack. This is where I beliee Remmers and Rieff will pay big dividends. They are not known to be top tier pass protectors, but they don't need to be IMO. They just need to create some running room and stay somewhat healthy. If those 2 things happen then your improvemnet numbers will look over conservative IMO.

Wed May 24, 2017 6:40 pm

SidestreamFB Pete

Backup

Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 amPosts: 62Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

Nice homework. I agree for the most part.

I think the total passing yards/TDs are going to stay similar, but we should expect less passes. I say this because I honestly think we have the tools to put together a top-10 rushing attack. This would severely reduce the amount of pass-protection/pass-rushing packages from opposing teams and would open up the play-action.

If the run-game comes together the defense is locked in a top-5 spot. They were top-5 on zero rest last year.

_________________Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.

Nice analysis! I'd like to believe the running game improves by 600 yards, but given how terrible it was last year that could be optimistic (certainly not out of the realm of possibility, though). Of course a lot of this assumes the O-line is actually better. I was pretty bullish on them last year before the nightmare began and am a bit more hesitant because of it. The biggest thing is they need their presumed starters to stay healthy. The question mark remains who is the starting center and right guard? Will Elfein be better than Berger? Probably not, but Berger at RG will probably be better than Berger at center and Fusco/Sirles. But that's just an assumption. The sad part is that the additions of Reiff and Remmers aren't great and we'll probably still field a sub-average line but their additions still represent a potential noticeable upgrade. So the question is, how much better on the bad scale will they be and how much of a difference will that make? For example, instead of being pressured on 50% of his dropbacks, will Sam now be pressured on 40% of his dropbacks? That's still terrible and a large hurdle for any offense to overcome in both phases.

What about losing Patterson in the return game? We've had the luxury of having excellent field position the last 4-6 years, really, with Harvin and Patterson being among the league leaders in return average and, thus, starting field position. There were games where we literally probably won because of the play of our special teams. I expect a regression here, which factors into the offensive production as well.

Also, how likely do you think that Sam's 2016 was an anomaly (both in playing 16 games and his effectiveness)? Is it a precursor of things to come or an outlier? I'd be surprised if he didn't toss a few more interceptions this year, but I agree that his yardage should remain more-or-less around the same.

_________________“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly

Wed May 24, 2017 8:13 pm

J. Kapp 11

Hall of Famer

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pmPosts: 6852

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

Nice work, Mansquatch. FWIW, I agree with pretty much all of it.

My only change is that I would estimate Bradford's yards will increase. Not hugely, but up. He threw for just under 3,900 yards last year in 15 games. That's 258 yards per game. I believe Bradford should have a modest improvement in yardage to 275 ypg. That's a 6.6% increase and works out to 4,400 yards.

I see this happening for a couple of reasons. With an improved offensive line, Bradford should have more chances to throw deeper routes than the dump-it-before-I-get-killed passes he was forced to throw so much last year. He's one of the most accurate deep-ball passers in the league, so I could see more yardage via these completions. Mansquatch, you alluded to this very thing in your analysis.

Also, I believe Dalvin Cook could make a huge difference in the passing game. For one thing, he's a dynamic receiver out of the backfield, capable of turning short passes into chunk plays. For another reason, if he's the runner many believe he is, it will open up the play-action game, which was practically non-existent last year because of our complete inability to run the ball.

Finally, Latavius Murray is not only a quality receiver out of the backfield, he's also one of the better pass-blocking running backs in the league.

Sum it all up, and I don't think a 6.6% improvement in passing yardage is out of the question.

Interesting about Kai Forbath. With his missed extra points and lack of distance on kickoffs, It's not a foregone conclusion that he'll be the Vikings' kicker. He still has to beat out Marshall Koehn, who has a pretty big leg. I miss Good Blair Walsh.

_________________Go ahead. I dare you.Underestimate this man.

Wed May 24, 2017 10:08 pm

808vikingsfan

Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pmPosts: 3218Location: Hawaii

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

SidestreamFB Pete wrote:

If the run-game comes together the defense is locked in a top-5 spot. They were top-5 on zero rest last year.

Good point.

I think the Vikings improved the running game and also stopping the run. Both will improve this team a thousand fold.

Thanks for all the tips and details. I agree on the return and coverage games likely taking a step back this year.

My big take away on the 600 yards was how we did in 2014 without #28. That year we had an injury riddled Kalil at LT, Loadholt in his last full season as a Viking and aslo, IIRMC Fusco was out the whole season at RG with a torn pec. Sullivan was the C, and I think Charlie Johnson was LG. Not exactly a world beater group. Yet they still managed 1800 yards on the ground.

Berger was an upgrade over Sullivan, that in part is why Sullivan got cut. Boone is an upgrade over Charlie Johnson. In the case of last season, I find it hard to believer that Remmers and Reiff will not be superior to Clemmings/Sirles even if the former end up being below average league wide. (More that the latter was that terrible.) RG is still a question, but we had a back up in at that position in 2014 and still made 1800 yards. So for me, the 600 yard thing seems reasonable.

Murray's nose for the end zone is also a net positive.

Kapp, I agree with you on the potential for a better passing game, especially in terms of yardage if only due to extra time to throw. If I add in your 6.6% increase I probably also need to add 2-3 TDs. The really blows up the offense, to the point where they are a top 10 unit.

My sense is that the return game, which we greatly relied on for scores last season will probably take a step back. That stuff is part luck, so I was inclined to let them offset in my analysis and show the passing game as a push in terms of total Scoring. This would also follow that if the offense is better the defense should be on the field less. Then again, if they are better they'll face teams taking more risk, so we could get more Turnovers. Very hard to predict this stuff.

The big thing for me is I feel like I'm being conservative. If they over achieve even a little this could quickly run away and turn into a special season.

_________________Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

Thu May 25, 2017 8:56 am

CbusVikesFan

All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:07 pmPosts: 1395Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

In depth analysis, great work. If Shurmur can find some inventive ways to move the ball with all the changes to the offense there will be a high ceiling for this year's squad. Key being O-line play.

_________________Don't hate on my Buckeyes. Some of the best Vikings went to Ohio State.Including now, HOF WR #80 Cris Carter

Thu May 25, 2017 5:04 pm

PacificNorseWest

Career Elite Player

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:10 amPosts: 2360Location: Seattle, Wa

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

CbusVikesFan wrote:

In depth analysis, great work. If Shurmur can find some inventive ways to move the ball with all the changes to the offense there will be a high ceiling for this year's squad. Key being O-line play.

I don't think it's inventiveness as much is it the Vikings needing to make some plays. Invention is required when you have Asiata in the backfield and no proven WR's. The Vikings have a nice nucleus of players with the playmaking ability now, so it's all about showing out at this point.

Fri May 26, 2017 6:45 pm

CbusVikesFan

All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:07 pmPosts: 1395Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

PacificNorseWest wrote:

CbusVikesFan wrote:

In depth analysis, great work. If Shurmur can find some inventive ways to move the ball with all the changes to the offense there will be a high ceiling for this year's squad. Key being O-line play.

I don't think it's inventiveness as much is it the Vikings needing to make some plays. Invention is required when you have Asiata in the backfield and no proven WR's. The Vikings have a nice nucleus of players with the playmaking ability now, so it's all about showing out at this point.

I agree. But I was speaking mostly about being less predictable. Hopefully there will be wrinkles from last year and some new plays. With a new look offense I am hoping it will take a few games for defenses figure out tendencies.

_________________Don't hate on my Buckeyes. Some of the best Vikings went to Ohio State.Including now, HOF WR #80 Cris Carter

Sat May 27, 2017 8:34 am

Demi

Commissioner

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pmPosts: 23761

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

CbusVikesFan wrote:

In depth analysis, great work. If Shurmur can find some inventive ways to move the ball with all the changes to the offense there will be a high ceiling for this year's squad. Key being O-line play.

Shurmur should be the biggest concern. The only time an offense he was coaching had even a top 10 rushing offense was when Chip Kelly was calling the plays and running the show.

Sat May 27, 2017 4:48 pm

CbusVikesFan

All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:07 pmPosts: 1395Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

Demi wrote:

CbusVikesFan wrote:

In depth analysis, great work. If Shurmur can find some inventive ways to move the ball with all the changes to the offense there will be a high ceiling for this year's squad. Key being O-line play.

Shurmur should be the biggest concern. The only time an offense he was coaching had even a top 10 rushing offense was when Chip Kelly was calling the plays and running the show.

I miss the days of Billick. Most of the time you really didn't know where the ball was going. We shall see what Shurmur has learned in the past few years if anything.

_________________Don't hate on my Buckeyes. Some of the best Vikings went to Ohio State.Including now, HOF WR #80 Cris Carter

Sun May 28, 2017 8:54 am

Mothman

Defensive Tackle

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 amPosts: 37356Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

CbusVikesFan wrote:

Demi wrote:

CbusVikesFan wrote:

In depth analysis, great work. If Shurmur can find some inventive ways to move the ball with all the changes to the offense there will be a high ceiling for this year's squad. Key being O-line play.

Shurmur should be the biggest concern. The only time an offense he was coaching had even a top 10 rushing offense was when Chip Kelly was calling the plays and running the show.

I miss the days of Billick. Most of the time you really didn't know where the ball was going. We shall see what Shurmur has learned in the past few years if anything.

Hopefully, he's learned plenty. There's genuine potential for an improved offense if they can stay healthy. I'm curious to see what kind of offense Shurmur will actually run. Ultimately, what I hope to see is a more efficient and aggressive offense that attacks the end zone, finishes drives with TDs and does a better job of converting 3rd downs (particularly on the road, where that's been a weakness). Improvements in passing yards or rushing yards should help with those goals but the yardage is less important than the points.

I'm equally curious to see how the defense will perform. The default assumption seems to be they're "great" and their post-bye performance was due to a lack of rest. Personally, that doesn't add up for me. The Vikings were average in terms of time of possession so does lack of rest due to the offense's performance really explain the difference between a hot start in which the defense allowed an average of about 12.5 points in 5 games (which actually IS great) and an average of about 22 points per game allowed after the bye? I doubt it's that simple.

Sun May 28, 2017 9:55 am

CbusVikesFan

All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:07 pmPosts: 1395Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

Jim, let's keep believing that they know what they're doing until they prove us right. Or wrong. Both sides of the ball are going to have to be better. There have been upgrades at many positions and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. For me having the QB position pretty solid makes me hope for the best.

_________________Don't hate on my Buckeyes. Some of the best Vikings went to Ohio State.Including now, HOF WR #80 Cris Carter

Last edited by CbusVikesFan on Sun May 28, 2017 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 28, 2017 6:11 pm

Mothman

Defensive Tackle

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 amPosts: 37356Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

CbusVikesFan wrote:

Jim, let's keep believing that they know what they're doing until they prove us right. Or wrong.

You're right... but it's SO hard to trust!

Sun May 28, 2017 6:23 pm

J. Kapp 11

Hall of Famer

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pmPosts: 6852

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

Mothman wrote:

I'm equally curious to see how the defense will perform. The default assumption seems to be they're "great" and their post-bye performance was due to a lack of rest. Personally, that doesn't add up for me. The Vikings were average in terms of time of possession so does lack of rest due to the offense's performance really explain the difference between a hot start in which the defense allowed an average of about 12.5 points in 5 games (which actually IS great) and an average of about 22 points per game allowed after the bye? I doubt it's that simple.

Obviously we don't know all the reasons for the defense's falloff, but I wonder if some of it could be attributed to the defense getting fed up with the offense's lack of productivity.

That would be a coaching issue, of course, but when I read about the stuff going on in Seattle and all the problems they're having with the defense being resentful of the offense, It does make me wonder whether something similar (hopefully not as severe) went on in the Vikings' locker room.

The biggest difference, to me, is Zimmer. Pete Carroll is loathe to ever call out anybody on the team for doing something wrong, so when Seattle's offense was putting up 6 first downs and he wouldn't say anything to light a fire under Russell Wilson or the offense, the defense got pretty resentful. Zimmer doesn't seem to have a problem calling anybody out (quite the opposite, if you believe Rhett Ellison's dad) but an inept offense could certainly demoralize a good defense.

As much as we'd like to make these guys into robots because of their high salaries, they're human. They get angry and fed up with each other. It SHOULDN'T demoralize a defense, but it could.

Don't even know if it's what I think. Just a "theory of the crime."

_________________Go ahead. I dare you.Underestimate this man.

Sun May 28, 2017 7:14 pm

Mothman

Defensive Tackle

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 amPosts: 37356Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

J. Kapp 11 wrote:

Obviously we don't know all the reasons for the defense's falloff, but I wonder if some of it could be attributed to the defense getting fed up with the offense's lack of productivity.

That would be a coaching issue, of course, but when I read about the stuff going on in Seattle and all the problems they're having with the defense being resentful of the offense, It does make me wonder whether something similar (hopefully not as severe) went on in the Vikings' locker room.

The biggest difference, to me, is Zimmer. Pete Carroll is loathe to ever call out anybody on the team for doing something wrong, so when Seattle's offense was putting up 6 first downs and he wouldn't say anything to light a fire under Russell Wilson or the offense, the defense got pretty resentful. Zimmer doesn't seem to have a problem calling anybody out (quite the opposite, if you believe Rhett Ellison's dad) but an inept offense could certainly demoralize a good defense.

As much as we'd like to make these guys into robots because of their high salaries, they're human. They get angry and fed up with each other. It SHOULDN'T demoralize a defense, but it could.

Don't even know if it's what I think. Just a "theory of the crime."

It's a worthy point. It had to be frustrating for the defense at times.

Sun May 28, 2017 7:55 pm

RFIP

Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pmPosts: 212

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

J. Kapp 11 wrote:

Mothman wrote:

I'm equally curious to see how the defense will perform. The default assumption seems to be they're "great" and their post-bye performance was due to a lack of rest. Personally, that doesn't add up for me. The Vikings were average in terms of time of possession so does lack of rest due to the offense's performance really explain the difference between a hot start in which the defense allowed an average of about 12.5 points in 5 games (which actually IS great) and an average of about 22 points per game allowed after the bye? I doubt it's that simple.

Obviously we don't know all the reasons for the defense's falloff, but I wonder if some of it could be attributed to the defense getting fed up with the offense's lack of productivity.

That would be a coaching issue, of course, but when I read about the stuff going on in Seattle and all the problems they're having with the defense being resentful of the offense, It does make me wonder whether something similar (hopefully not as severe) went on in the Vikings' locker room.

The biggest difference, to me, is Zimmer. Pete Carroll is loathe to ever call out anybody on the team for doing something wrong, so when Seattle's offense was putting up 6 first downs and he wouldn't say anything to light a fire under Russell Wilson or the offense, the defense got pretty resentful. Zimmer doesn't seem to have a problem calling anybody out (quite the opposite, if you believe Rhett Ellison's dad) but an inept offense could certainly demoralize a good defense.

As much as we'd like to make these guys into robots because of their high salaries, they're human. They get angry and fed up with each other. It SHOULDN'T demoralize a defense, but it could.

Don't even know if it's what I think. Just a "theory of the crime."

To ME the demise of the defense can be linked to how teams started playing against them. IE Running the ball more and more. Without Floyd helping in the middle of the line teams ran the ball down the Vikings throats far too much and forcing 8-9 in the box while taking away from the more complex secondary coverages Zim likes to play.

Of course the offense played its part too but imo poor run D was their ultimate undoing.

If, and I believe WHEN this years offense is better and more explosive it will go a long way in getting the D back to where they play best, rushing the passer and playing strong coverage behind their rush BUT they need to find answers at DT to consistently shut down the run as well.

Mon May 29, 2017 5:45 am

Maelstrom88

Veteran

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 amPosts: 297

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

I think the offense can be considerably better if Cooks is as good as advertised. The tackles should be ok in a Shurmur led offense that gets the ball out FAST. I don't think they will be explosive but I think they can be a top 15 offense which combined with a nasty defense would be formidable.

I think the offense can be considerably better if Cooks is as good as advertised. The tackles should be ok in a Shurmur led offense that gets the ball out FAST. I don't think they will be explosive but I think they can be a top 15 offense which combined with a nasty defense would be formidable.

Ironically one of the very few "2nd and manageables" you will see is the play action slant to Diggs for 50 yards vs GB. FAR TOO MANY passes come on 2nd and 12, 3rd and 24, 2nd and 16, 3rd and 27 and 2nd and 10.

The 2016 OL combined with all those long yardage down and distances was a recipe for disaster. It's a miracle Bradford didn't throw 20+ ints and/or end up on IR.

I have a lot of faith that Cooks and Murray + the new "decent" tackles are going to put Sam in a LOT more favorable situations this season. Plus I believe the Ohio St kid is a stud and will be a day 1 starter inside as well.

This offense has great potential.

Mon May 29, 2017 10:59 am

PurpleMustReign

Starting Wide Receiver

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pmPosts: 18247Location: Crystal, MN

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

I was surprised at how poor the run defense was, really since Pat Williams retired. They can rush the QB better than any other team, but ask them to tackle a RB and they were almost clueless.

I was surprised at how poor the run defense was, really since Pat Williams retired. They can rush the QB better than any other team, but ask them to tackle a RB and they were almost clueless.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Don't forget about Kevin, EJ, and Antoine.

Looking at the stats, yes they were great against the run for a few years, but look at the pass defense. There's only been a couple of years where both were in the top 15. Hopefully, this year will be one of them.

[quote="808vikingsfan"]Looking at the stats, yes they were great against the run for a few years, but look at the pass defense.[quote]

It's worth looking at other stats to put that in some perspective. For example, in the years Childress was head coach, the run defense was so formidable that teams often just looked to the air. In 4 of those 5 seasons, the Vikings had either the fewest rushing attempts against them or the second fewest and the reason for that is evident in the yards per carry averages they allowed. During those 5 seasons, they were ranked 1, 2, 1, 5 and 5 in that category, respectively. That run defense encouraged teams to pass, which is particularly evident in 2006 and 2007.

Of course, even with the addition of the stats below, the numbers and rankings don't gives us a complete picture.

PAA = Passing attempts againstRAA = Rushing attempts againstThe number in parentheses is the league ranking. For example, just to be clear regarding the stats below, in 2006 they had the most passes attempted against them and the fewest rushes attempted against them. They were the 12th best team in the league in average yards allowed per passing attempt and the best team in the league in average yards allowed per rushing attempt. 2006PAA: 599 (#1)RAA: 348 (#32)League ranking in average YPA: #12 (6.7)League ranking in average YPC: #1 (2.8 )

The last 3 years have been the worst over that entire span in terms of average yards allowed per carry. There's definitely some work to do there.

Mon May 29, 2017 1:41 pm

J. Kapp 11

Hall of Famer

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pmPosts: 6852

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

Mothman wrote:

808vikingsfan wrote:

Looking at the stats, yes they were great against the run for a few years, but look at the pass defense.

Quote:

It's worth looking at other stats to put that in some perspective. For example, in the years Childress was head coach, the run defense was so formidable that teams often just looked to the air. In 4 of those 5 seasons, the Vikings had either the fewest rushing attempts against them or the second fewest and the reason for that is evident in the yards per carry averages they allowed. During those 5 seasons, they were ranked 1, 2, 1, 5 and 5 in that category, respectively. That run defense encouraged teams to pass, which is particularly evident in 2006 and 2007.

Of course, even with the addition of the stats below, the numbers and rankings don't gives us a complete picture.

PAA = Passing attempts againstRAA = Rushing attempts againstThe number in parentheses is the league ranking. For example, just to be clear regarding the stats below, in 2006 they had the most passes attempted against them and the fewest rushes attempted against them. They were the 12th best team in the league in average yards allowed per passing attempt and the best team in the league in average yards allowed per rushing attempt. 2006PAA: 599 (#1)RAA: 348 (#32)League ranking in average YPA: #12 (6.7)League ranking in average YPC: #1 (2.8 )

The last 3 years have been the worst over that entire span in terms of average yards allowed per carry. There's definitely some work to do there.

Nice work here. Thanks for all the research.

Here's what the positive is for me. In today's NFL, a good defense needs to be stout against the pass. It can't be a sieve against the run, but middle of the pack or better against the run can get it done as long as your pass defense is excellent, which ours is.

That being said, I totally agree with you, Jim. There's plenty of work to be done against the run, and if they can somehow make significant strides, THEN we can talk about the defense being "elite." And an elite defense will at least get you into the playoffs most years.

Here's what concerns me, though. The interior defensive linemen the Vikings have acquired this offseason, namely Sutton and Jones, are considered pass-rushing tackles. And Jaleel Johnson is a rookie, so who knows what we're getting there? This staff seems to be in love with pass rushers.

It sounds SO WEIRD to say, but as of now, the Vikings are the exact opposite of their personality during the Childress years: Average against the run and absolutely putrid at running the ball on offense. If we can somehow get to average on rushing offense and even slightly above average on rushing defense, say top-12, then I believe the playoffs are almost a given. Seeing as how we've only made the playoffs once in the past four years, I'll take it.

_________________Go ahead. I dare you.Underestimate this man.

Mon May 29, 2017 6:15 pm

Mothman

Defensive Tackle

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 amPosts: 37356Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

J. Kapp 11 wrote:

Here's what the positive is for me. In today's NFL, a good defense needs to be stout against the pass. It can't be a sieve against the run, but middle of the pack or better against the run can get it done as long as your pass defense is excellent, which ours is.

That being said, I totally agree with you, Jim. There's plenty of work to be done against the run, and if they can somehow make significant strides, THEN we can talk about the defense being "elite." And an elite defense will at least get you into the playoffs most years.

Especially if paired with a good running game, which you addressed below.

Quote:

Here's what concerns me, though. The interior defensive linemen the Vikings have acquired this offseason, namely Sutton and Jones, are considered pass-rushing tackles. And Jaleel Johnson is a rookie, so who knows what we're getting there? This staff seems to be in love with pass rushers.

It certainly seems that way and from what I've read, Johnson fits more into that mold, although I guess we'll see what he brings to the table soon enough. It seems to me Zimmer's defense is very much built to defend the pass and play with a lead.

Quote:

It sounds SO WEIRD to say, but as of now, the Vikings are the exact opposite of their personality during the Childress years: Average against the run and absolutely putrid at running the ball on offense. If we can somehow get to average on rushing offense and even slightly above average on rushing defense, say top-12, then I believe the playoffs are almost a given. Seeing as how we've only made the playoffs once in the past four years, I'll take it.

I definitely want to see them in the postseason again and it would be nice to see them actually win in postseason again too. Above everything else, I think the offense really has to start scoring TDs more often. I know it's an obvious but ultimately, that's far more more important than improving yardage totals. The Vikings offense scored 29 TDs in 2014 and 2016 and 32 in 2015. Averaging 2 offensive TDs a game or less is just not cutting it. It puts too much pressure on the defense to actually be elite.

Mon May 29, 2017 6:41 pm

808vikingsfan

Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pmPosts: 3218Location: Hawaii

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

Mothman wrote:

It's worth looking at other stats to put that in some perspective. For example, in the years Childress was head coach, the run defense was so formidable that teams often just looked to the air. In 4 of those 5 seasons, the Vikings had either the fewest rushing attempts against them or the second fewest and the reason for that is evident in the yards per carry averages they allowed. During those 5 seasons, they were ranked 1, 2, 1, 5 and 5 in that category, respectively. That run defense encouraged teams to pass, which is particularly evident in 2006 and 2007.

Of course, even with the addition of the stats below, the numbers and rankings don't gives us a complete picture.

Good points.

Mothman wrote:

The last 3 years have been the worst over that entire span in terms of average yards allowed per carry. There's definitely some work to do there.

Another important stat for a defense is scoring. If you keep the opposition out of the end zone, the yards don't matter much. The Vikings have been ranked 5th the past two years in defensive scoring, its best ranking since 1988. That's almost 30 years.

Found this:

Quote:

In 2001, when New England won its first Super Bowl, the Patriots ranked 19th in the NFL on offense and 24th on defense. They ranked near the bottom of the league in yards per pass attempt and in getting their quarterback sacked. They ranked near the bottom of the league in field position after kickoffs, giving their opponents a 3.1-yard edge. They did rank among the league leaders in red zone defense, but the rest of their numbers were mediocre.

Another important stat for a defense is scoring. If you keep the opposition out of the end zone, the yards don't matter much. The Vikings have been ranked 5th the past two years in defensive scoring, its best ranking since 1988. That's almost 30 years.

I think they actually finished 6th last year but that doesn't diminish your point. After all, as you pointed out, the points matter more than the yards.

Quote:

Found this:

Quote:

In 2001, when New England won its first Super Bowl, the Patriots ranked 19th in the NFL on offense and 24th on defense. They ranked near the bottom of the league in yards per pass attempt and in getting their quarterback sacked. They ranked near the bottom of the league in field position after kickoffs, giving their opponents a 3.1-yard edge. They did rank among the league leaders in red zone defense, but the rest of their numbers were mediocre.

A team certainly doesn't need to be highly-ranked on offense or defense to win it all. The 2012 Ravens were ranked in the middle of the pack on both offense and defense but as a team, they were formidable enough to go 10-6 and win the Super Bowl.

As both of those examples illustrate, season rankings in any category only tell us so much, especially since football games often comes down to matchups, coaching, etc. and a team can start a season hot and go cold or start poorly, get hot at the right time and make a postseason run. Dynamics like that aren't reflected clearly in a seasons totals for yards, points allowed, etc.

Tue May 30, 2017 7:00 am

Nunin

Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 amPosts: 567

Re: Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think

games are often won or lost on just a few plays, as well.Once a team gets into the playoffs anything can happen.A dominant defense or offense can have an off game game wind up losing to a team that is statistically inferior but has gelled at the right time.Making the playoffs is the crux. Kicking butt in the division is the key IMO.You can often toss stats out in division games. It usually comes down to gameplan and making plays...or not, as in cases of missed FGs etc.